There's A Big Unknown About Putting The Female Body In Combathttp://www.businessinsider.com/female-troops-against-women-in-combat-tammy-duckworth-katie-petronio-2013-2/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:21:05 -0500Paul Szoldrahttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/51126513eab8eaa409000006JosiahWed, 06 Feb 2013 09:13:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51126513eab8eaa409000006
women have been known to get urinary tract infections over long marches because they don't want to drop the panties in front of 50 men and gohttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5110b6d8eab8eab14e000008cabaretvoltaireTue, 05 Feb 2013 02:38:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5110b6d8eab8eab14e000008
This is clearly an attack on our civilization.
Somebody in the halls of politics wants to destroy us.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5110b6986bb3f7137d00000acabaretvoltaireTue, 05 Feb 2013 02:36:56 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5110b6986bb3f7137d00000a
Why would men vote to send their women into combat?
These women must be the ones that the men want to get rid of.
There is no shortage of men to send into combat.
There is no reason to send the female into harm's way.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5110437069bedda339000017Simon BolivarMon, 04 Feb 2013 18:25:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5110437069bedda339000017
My concern is more to how women will hold up to the lack of personal sanitation. Days and sometimes weeks with nothing more than a whore's bath. That's a little water and a wash cloth applied to one's private parts. Men have no problems with possible infections of the urinary track because of this but how do women fare?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510ff0b1eab8ea3c070000091whoquestionsMon, 04 Feb 2013 12:32:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510ff0b1eab8ea3c07000009
I have no problem with it as long as standards remain the same and women can meet those standards. However, we would do well to thoroughly consider the psychological impact and effects of women being used against men. That is to say, several men and women soldiers are captured by the enemy. The enemy threatens to harm the women through torture and/or rape if the men do not fully cooperate with them. As a man's natural instict is to protect women, how do we subjegate that instinct and continue to reinforce the men that they acted in the right way?
This also begs another question. Should women now be required to registered for the draft as they are now in combat roles?
You want equality? Beware of what you ask for as you just may get it and have to suffer the unintended consequences of that action. Women coming home in body bags. Women who are infantry soldiers being raped and becoming pregnant at the hand of the enemy. Subsequenty, their captors threating to torture their newborn children (even as a result of the rape) if they do not fully cooperate with them and answer all of their questions fully and honestly. Women being physically tortured through cigarette burns, fingers and other extremeties being cut off, etc. Water boarding would the least of our worries.
Are we prepared for that and will we ever be prepared for that?
To quote Jurrasic Park (paraphrasing), "You did this because you could and didn't stop to think if you really should."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fea2969bedd1f56000001JumboMon, 04 Feb 2013 12:04:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fea2969bedd1f56000001
All that talk about not lowering the standards for women is BS. The military has always had and still has lower physical standards for women. The standards are different for age and gender. A 18 year old female has about the same physical standards as a 40 year old male on the physical fitness test, and a 40 year old female physical fitness test is basically to just be still breathing. It's ridiculous to say that the standards won't be lowered for women, and then more soldiers will die, especially in a real war like WWII when you have to have many many more boots on the ground. As an MP we once had about 20 new female privates assigned to our battalion. Within one year only 3 were still performing their jobs. The rest were either pregnant, discharged, or reassigned to administrative positions because they were physically not able to do their job because of injuries or other medical issues.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fe4bdecad04ed05000014Blue6Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:41:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fe4bdecad04ed05000014
"....asking when the ban on women in the NFL will be lifted."
??? The only professional sports that have gender restrictions are women's sports.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fe39a6bb3f71a74000003Mr. ObviousMon, 04 Feb 2013 11:36:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fe39a6bb3f71a74000003
Fire people instantly for merely STATING the opposite of an official narrative - this is a part of a broader control agenda that seeks to criminalize the free flow of ideas, especially any idea with a degree of merit. It's thuggery at its worst.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fd5dbecad046d6b000001SchmidtMon, 04 Feb 2013 10:38:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/510fd5dbecad046d6b000001
"gender-specific medical issues" - ???
Sexist BS. Dividing the military staff in males and females and practicing gender-specific politics is against the interests of women in particular. It is sexist to the core.
There should be absolutely no differences made between the genders, and all existing facilities and policies that were sufficient for males should be unconditionally identical for women too.
Anyone who states the opposite, regardless the gender, should be fired on spot.
I can't understand why sexists like Hilary Clinton and other supposed 'women rights activists' keep quiet about such sexist practices. Something is smelly here.